“Creative Chaos” and the War in Libya

By Mlabo Kibble

The kind of rapid and complete collapse that we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism is not happening in the Arab world. More depressing, what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal.

“Creative Chaos” and the War in Libya

The Arab world is undergoing violent uprising and conflict. The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent.  Really? Many think the violence is genuine and locally rooted. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, genuinely supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world. This is just a myth. The reasons for the widespread unrest go beyond the Arab world, although, obviously, the dynamics within that world are important in and of themselves. The recent events in the Arab world were influenced directly by a powerful and well organized external force. And it is not totally unrelated to some grand strategies.

Seemingly, the Arab region has now entered an advanced phase of the so-called "creative chaos" doctrine, which was shaped by the neo-conservative administration chaired by the former White House occupant, and spelt out by its Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The importance of the Arab world for strategic interests of America is hard to estimate. Together with Iran and the Caspian Sea Basin it is the biggest centre of energy supply in the whole world. On the top of this Libya became the focus of a significant Western intervention for specific reasons. It is no secret that Ghadafi failed to privatize the oil industry. It was a country with the highest level of control of national resources. No doubt, Ghadafi and his children were terrible and amassed wealth disproportional from other Libyans, but the country was doing well. Evidently, France was unhappy because its company Total Oil was asked by Libya to pay a large amount of money in compensation. Besides, Ghadafi shunned the purchase of modern military equipments from Paris. Moreover, the Liyan leader is believed to have obstructed the main French regionalization project, the Union for the Mediterranean, by refusing to join as full member insisting on staying with only an observer status. Moreover, Ghadafi opposed the move as a conspiracy against Arab and African Unity. French role in the military campaign against Libya is self evident.

US strategy is also less intriguing. Triggering anarchy to topple the so-called “Undemocratic Regimes “in the Middle East and North Africa has been a major policy focus of the US in recent years. Mainly President George W. Bush adopted a special Doctrine of Middle East reorganization.  No wonder, American non-governmental and human rights organizations have continued to support pro Western groups in Egypt and Tunisia. Apparently, the contest is now between Islamic philanthropic organizations and Western NGOs. When for the first time the word ‘creative chaos’ was heard, it was from the former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an attempt of transforming Middle East to a ‘new’ Middle East. This creativity worked almost a decade to get the desired results.

Things to watch. First, Western military strikes in Libya wouldn’t solve the problem as the pro Western Libyan camp is divided and inefficient to bring stability and order to the country and its neighborhood. The kind of rapid and complete collapse that we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism is not happening in the Arab world. More depressing, what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal.

Second, the Transitional National Council is led by recycled Ghadafi officials and is reportedly infiltrated by radical Islamic groups. Yes, the opposition to Ghadafi was real, but its claim to represent the overwhelming majority of Libyan people was dubious. Many of the leaders had been part of the Gadhafi regime, and it is doubtful they were selected for their government posts because of their personal popularity. The ouster of Colonel Ghadafi from power may not herald the beginning of a new era. Unless credible political process is put in place the end of Ghadafi could mean the beginning of a new cycle of conflict and violence. The bottom line: NATO campaign is perverse. Military solutions are not sustainable and cause suffering. Besides, only the Libyan people should determine their own future and choose their own leaders. My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about the war and the end of the Ghadafi regime. I have several questions about the intent of NATO and the West, but my real concern is whether this is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure.